What do the sites share, and what does each site decide for itself?
In a multi-site evaluation, the sites share the parts that make results comparable, and each site decides the parts that make results meaningful locally. The shared parts usually include:
- The evaluation questions the initiative as a whole needs to answer.
- A short list of common measures, collected the same way at every site.
- Common definitions, such as what counts as a participant or as completing the program.
- Timing, so information is collected at comparable points in the work.
- Procedures for consent, privacy, and data handling, including any required institutional review.
Each site can then add questions that matter locally, choose methods that suit its participants, and schedule data collection around its own calendar. An evaluator who understands how a school, college, or community organization operates won't schedule a focus group during finals week or a survey during a site's busiest season.
How does a multi-site evaluation run over the course of the initiative?
A multi-site evaluation runs as a repeating cycle over the course of the initiative: collect information at each site, analyze it site by site, return results to each site, and bring the sites together to interpret what's happening across them. How often that cycle repeats depends on the length of the initiative and the decisions it informs.
For example, a made-up foundation funding mentoring programs at six community organizations might agree on three shared questions and two common measures, collected at the start and end of each program year. Each organization might also run its own focus groups with mentors. After each round, the evaluator would send each organization a short summary of its own results, then hold a session where all six compare what they're seeing and discuss why results differ. The funder would receive a cross-site synthesis built from the same information.
What does the evaluation process look like from kickoff to final report? describes the arc of a single evaluation engagement from start to finish.
What does each site get from a multi-site evaluation?
Each site gets its own results during the initiative, along with a view of how its work compares with the other sites and what they're learning. A site can see what's working in its own program early enough to adjust it, and it can learn from sites that are solving a similar problem in a different way. That exchange is one of the main reasons to evaluate across sites instead of separately.
Sites also benefit when data collection is coordinated. A shared design means each site isn't building its own evaluation from scratch, and an evaluator working across all of them can keep the requests proportionate to what will be used. When a funder sponsors the evaluation, the purpose, who sees each site's results, and how they'll be used should be clear to every site from the start. What's the difference between grantee support and compliance monitoring? covers that line.
Who coordinates a multi-site evaluation?
A multi-site evaluation is usually coordinated by an external evaluator working with the funder or lead organization and with a contact person at each site. The evaluator leads the design, keeps procedures consistent across sites, analyzes the information, and facilitates the cross-site conversations. The site contacts help schedule data collection, explain local context, and share results with their own teams. The funder or lead organization sets the purpose and decides how the results will inform its next steps.
On a larger initiative, the evaluation may be led by one firm with others contributing specialist work. Grantibly can serve as the lead external evaluation partner across sites or as a specialist within a larger project team.
The Grantibly perspective
Lauren's perspective
Evaluation shouldn't operate on a separate track from the program. We believe in sharing useful findings while there's still time to act on them. Annual reports and final reports matter, but project teams shouldn't have to wait until the end of a grant to learn something important.
Projects are often eager to know whether their program worked. That's an important question, but it's difficult to interpret outcomes without understanding implementation: who participated, what changed along the way, what barriers emerged, and whether participants at different sites had the same experience.
